Showing posts with label Strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Strategy. Show all posts

Monday, September 2, 2013

A Few Thoughts on Content Creation, Monetization, and Strategy


(Photo credit: Shewatchedthesky)

This is short post on content creation and monetization.

Below is an e-mail I received from a friend of a friend. My answers to him are inline after “TIM”, and I’ve elaborated on a few.

The e-mail itself is also a great example of a thoughtful approach to a busy person (me). I bolded one key phrase.

For those who want to explore further, here are two related posts:

How to Build a High-Traffic Blog Without Killing Yourself
Tim Ferriss Scam! Practical Tactics for Dealing with Haters

Now, let’s read that e-mail…

Tim -

I realize you are a very busy man and you mentioned in your last reply that you are taking a couple of months off from doing interviews. I respect your request and, having read your work, understand the motivation behind it. I certainly don’t mean to intrude, but I’m working on a project for my work as a Content Strategist and would greatly appreciate it if you wouldn’t mind taking two minutes to answer two questions. I promise they are short and to the point and that I will not follow up your answers with more questions, unless you specifically allow me to. I thank you for your time in advance.

TIM: No problem :)

The questions are as follows:

When working with brands, specifically big multinational brands, I often run into the mindset that volume and velocity are the most important aspect of content marketing. Yet, it seems to me that agility and ensuring the content is found, consumed, shared and acted upon – meaning that content leads to conversions of direct business value – are more important than simple speed. What is your rule of thumb as it relates to content that keeps you from being in the news business and so focused on specificity while allowing for flexibility in topics and responsiveness?

TIM: You can’t out Fox News Fox News. Timely news-based content turns life (or business) into a keeping up with the Joneses nightmare. I focus on evergreen/useful content that is as valuable 6 months from now as it is the day it’s published. It might mean less immediate traffic, but it means sticky traffic and also Google traffic that will add up to monstrous traffic later. This all factors into conversion and sales, if that’s your priority.

My approach allows great flexibility and offers the option to hit STOP without losing it all. If I stopped writing blog posts tomorrow, I’d still make tons of income from my traffic (via books, start-up intros, speaking gigs, etc.). That was never the primary intent of my writing, but it’s a nice side-effect!

People prefer to trust other people, not brands (e.g. Steve Jobs versus Apple), so I have the advantage of being a single-person-based media provider. Brands can do this by singling out killer personalities to drive their brands (e.g. Bobby Flay for Food Network in the early days).

People want to follow humans, not trademarks. Plan accordingly.

How much of your content is planned vs. responsive?

TIM: 90% planned, at least. I write about the things that capture my attention and imagination, first and foremost. Guessing what other people want is exactly that — guessing. The remaining <10% is experimental and based on reader leads.

As a content marketer, the value of my work is often calculated in the same terms that media ROI is determined by. Yet, working in the digital space, it seems we can be so much more precise as it relates to causation. TV and media metrics often fall into the old logical fallacy of “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” (“After this therefore because of this”) Knowing that you are devotee of Drucker’s axiom “that which gets measured gets managed” I wonder what model you use to calculate the ROI of your content. Can you make a recommendation?

TIM: I don’t quantify the profitability of each piece of content, as it would affect my editorial purity and stymie my curiosity to explore things on the edges… yet that’s precisely what’s built my reputation, if I have one!

I write about what most excites me and assume that will hold true for 10,000+ people… if I write about it well. If I get 100 die-hard fans per post like that, I can build an army that will not only consider buying anything I sell later (assuming high quality — most critical!), but they’ll also promote my work as trustworthy to other people. This compounds quickly. The product — here writing — needs to stand on its own two feet.

Furthermore, it’s much more interesting to me to sell something like a small-scale, $10,000-per-seat seminar every 2-3 years, instead of obsessing over monthly, weekly, or even daily Amazon commissions, for instance.

Many high-traffic blogs and publishers are coming to similar conclusions and doing much the same. Optimizing a bad business (or marginally profitable one) is not as elegant as creating a parallel, higher-margin revenue stream. Think TED videos and TED attendance. If TED charged for their videos from the beginning, where would they be now? Near obscurity.

As Warren Buffett once said, “Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.”

That said, if you’re operating in a CPM-ruled world, you might have other near-term pressures, but I’m building a snowball the size of continents. The catch: it sometimes moves at a glacial pace. Big things take time, but that’s OK — almost nothing can stop a glacier from moving once it reaches critical mass.

Thank you again for your time and consideration in this matter. I certainly appreciate it, as I do all of your work.

TIM: Thank you and my pleasure!

###

AFTERWORD TO READERS: What are your most burning questions about content, whether as craft or business? Please let me know in the commments, and I’d love to hear your own best practices.

Posted on May 2nd, 2013


View the original article here

Sunday, July 21, 2013

New Strategy Helps Young Lymphoma Patients Avoid Radiation Treatment

Approach resulted in high remission rates without the risks tied to radiotherapy, researchers sayApproach resulted in high remission rates without

By Mary Elizabeth Dallas

HealthDay Reporter

WEDNESDAY, April 10 (HealthDay News) -- A new treatment approach may mean that young people with a form of lymphoma can go without radiation therapy, sparing them side effects or raised cancer risks down the road.

In a trial conducted by the U.S. National Cancer Institute, nearly all patients with a form of cancer known as primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who received chemotherapy, but did not undergo chest radiation, achieved a full remission.

Standard treatment for this cancer typically includes radiation to the chest, the study authors pointed out, but this has been linked to significant harmful effects in the future, particularly for women.

"These results are exciting and demonstrate that, using this approach, almost all patients appear to be cured and very few patients require radiation," study co-author Dr. Kieron Dunleavy, of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, said in an agency news release.

One expert not connected to the study agreed.

"This study is a significant achievement in improving the care of a group of lymphoma patients that urgently need it: young patients with an aggressive and -- if left untreated -- rapidly lethal disease," said Dr. Joshua Brody, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.

The study "yielded very exciting success rates with almost all patients going into complete remission even without the use of radiation therapy, which is frequently used for this disease," Brody added. All of the patients in the study maintained remission "for a long time," he noted, and "most of the patients are certainly cured of their disease."

The study is published in the April 11 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma usually affects people in their teens to early 30s. Although many people with the disease who are treated with both chemotherapy and radiation do achieve a cure, roughly 20 percent do not, according to an NCI news release.

The research team noted that radiation to the chest area could also boost a patient's risk for other types of cancer down the road, including breast cancer, as well as cause damage to the heart. Complicating matters, as young people age, their risk for heart disease and new forms of cancer also rises.

The NIH trial involved 51 patients with untreated primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma who were followed over the course of 14 years. The largest tumor diameter of any patient in the study was 11 centimeters.

Each patient received a regimen of drugs known as dose-adjusted EPOCH-R. The regimen included the following drugs: etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone and rituximab. The dosages of these drugs were adjusted to make them as effective as possible.


View the original article here